Is there really that much of a difference between "charity and philanthropy" v "public duty"?

[Funfacts99]

For the record I lean towards Republicanism but in general I am on the fence about this specific, current H & M debacle. On the one hand, I think it must be very difficult to join the RF as an outsider. On the other hand, I can see the merit in the argument that you are either totally in, or totally out.

However, as has been stated, is there really that much of a difference between so-called "public duty" and "charity and philanthropy" in reality? The Queen and Prince Charles undoubtedly put in the work visiting hospitals, village halls, and scout huts across the country. But at the same time, their land and estates make huge profits and generate a lot of income.

Therefore it could be argued that the RF's charitable work is backed by private income too. So what's the difference (apart from practical logistics related to H & M's location, but they have already said they would be willing to travel) between doing charitable work supported by income that you generate yourself by deals with Netflix etc, and doing charitable works backed by income generated from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall's land and estates (which, if I have understood it correctly) is private, not public money?

However quietly (or not) H lives though, I am not sure he would ever be able to completely shake his royal connections even if he wanted to, especially when William becomes king, so maybe they have decided to run with it?

We could make a start by removing Harry from the line of succession and removing both Harry and Megan's titles. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it - they seem to want the benefits of being in the RF but non of the rules.

I think the RF is wrong on this. Service is universal. Simply saying if you don’t move what you do it is service (as some posters are implying is laughable). I would have a lower opinion of someone who did charity without having passion at all. Simply because they got to live in a placate and mega tax bucks for that.

Isn’t it better that M&M and most normal people earn their own way and do charity service as an extra, because they really care about it?
Tbh, I am amazed that anyone can argue that there is virtue in the RF stance in this. It is such an entitled, insular and feudal attitude

Sorry for typos. I meant simply saying that service is when you do charity without loving your work is bonkers. Making a virtue out of a vice

According to posters on this thread and the RF, service is when

• You are mega rich and don’t need to earn a living
• Preferably mega rich living of the tax payer so there isn’t a ‘conflict of interest’ (Let’s ignore that all that wealth is invested somewhere with lots of vested interests to keep it multiplying)
• you don’t enjoy doing charity, so it is a ‘service’
• you are royalty so you are inherently superior and waving to the plebs is a ‘service’

@Funfacts99

OK those most recent posts have swung me towards the RF's pov (despite leaning towards Republicanism). All of you make very good points.

Hathertonhariden I think all of those minor royals you mention have had their moments and difficulties reconciling earning money and royal duties so I'm not sure I would describe them as happy with their lot exactly, but I see what you are saying about the scale of H&M's ambition.

And it's absolutelytrue that they are playing on their royal connections to build their "brand".

However quietly (or not) H lives though, I am not sure he would ever be able to completely shake his royal connections even if he wanted to, especially when William becomes king, so maybe they have decided to run with it?

I think that the problems some of the minor members of the RF have had in earning a living (Peter's milk commercials) show just how fine a line you have to tread - once you are a senior member the scale of the problem if you misjudge it escalates hugely. It is a major catch-22 for H&M. They don't want the negative publicity for making deals that embarrass the RF but without the link to the RF there wouldn't be as many opportunities to increase their standing.

@DeRigueurMortis

Reportedly one of the reasons H&M feel aggrieved is because they think they are being treated differently from other members of the RF.

In one press statement they cited earning a living whilst carrying out Royal duties was not without precedent.

If you remember in their break away statement what they said was they were stepping down as "senior" royals, not stepping away from being royal.

It's true that other members of the RF have earned whilst still being royal.

B&E, Zara and Philip by way of example.

However there are some pretty fundamental differences.

Earning tens of thousands for flogging milk or a car company or getting a job at Sotheby's is not on par with signing $100m deals with Netflix.

A deal designed to provide content to a large audience that would influence people in line with H&M's political, aspirational and cultural beliefs.

H&M don't just want to earn a living, they want to be global icons/movers and shakers. That's fair enough but it simply isn't compatible with being "in" the RF.

Also bear in mind his cousins do not receive money from the sovereign grant, Duchy of Cornwall or get security provided by the state (H&M wanted to retain the latter 2 losing only the relatively minor grant).

The other distinction is simply who Harry is. Saying he isn't a "senior" royal doesn't really cut it.

His cousins aren't "senior" because of their relative proximity to the line of succession.

Harry is the grandson of the monarch but unlike his cousins will become the son and then brother of the King.

His actions (and that of his wife) have far greater implications to the crown than anyone else outside of C&C plus W&C and their children.

The only way to protect the Crown from any fallout if H&M want to go their own way on a global stage is to have a firm line of separation between them and "working" royals.

As for "service is universal" wtf does that even mean?

I'm sure they believe they will do good works and highlight worthy causes but fundamentally they will benefit hugely from it.

It's not the same as someone like Bill Gates who earned his fortune and then became a philanthropist.

They want to appear philanthropic whilst building a fortune.

I honest don't mind them wanting to break free, nor earn their own money but I can't help feel they've been somewhat naive in their expectations and demands - even at times sounding pretty petulant (eg their latest statement).

Overall I think they could have achieved the same outcome as they have with less drama/upset and a lot more goodwill had they acted differently.

Well said.

If you are a working royal who gets money from the Sovereign Grant then you do your share of things like cutting ribbons and you are a royal patron of various charities, which will tend to be things you have a particular interest in. It looks as though H and M Wanted to ditch the boring bits, like schlepping round to open things but to keep doing some of the stuff that interested them.

It's a constitutional monarchy, Parliament is sovereign. All the monarch can do is advise and counsel, do the ceremonials, and engage in soft diplomacy. If the US President visits, it doesn't matter who they are, you greet and host them. If the government wants improved relations with eg Turkey, they send you there, you smile and engage etc. This means that you have to put certain views aside. If that isn't for you, then don't do it. The point is that if you're in the business you can't pick and choose.
Meghan and Harry have a lot to contribute and certainly have direction, motivation and ambition, but maybe it doesn't slot in with that model.

The Queen is all about being 'mute' when it comes to personal opinions expressed publicly whilst Meghan is about 'having a voice'. I don't think they can coexist under the same umbrella.

I have some sympathy for Meghan and Harry in that I feel the Royals haven't got a monopoly on 'public service' and I'd like to swap the use of those words in the statement from Buckingham Palace for something like ''monarchic service' instead.

@Lookingforwardto2021

According to posters on this thread and the RF, service is when

• You are mega rich and don’t need to earn a living
• Preferably mega rich living of the tax payer so there isn’t a ‘conflict of interest’ (Let’s ignore that all that wealth is invested somewhere with lots of vested interests to keep it multiplying)
• you don’t enjoy doing charity, so it is a ‘service’
• you are royalty so you are inherently superior and waving to the plebs is a ‘service’

No, I don't think anyone is saying that at all.

The comparisons to Bill Gates et al are in direct response to the title of the thread comparing/contrasting philanthropy with public service.

There are many people who provide a public service who are neither royal nor rich.

The tireless stalwarts of the village who raise funds/maintain and manage the local village hall and playground to the benefit of all in the community, the volunteer youth centre workers who give often troubled children a direction, focus and sense of self worth/belief, the people who dedicate huge amounts of effort raising funds for charity and so on.

However there is a fundamental difference between these people, philanthropists and the RF.

Unlike the RF they make their own free choices as to the services they provide, what time/financial commitments etc.

Once they've done their shift volunteering at the Samaritans for example their life is their own.

Where they live, how they vote, who they socialise with, what hobbies they have, what clothes they wear, what they are doing next weekend etc

The diaries of senior royals are booked up years in advance. They don't get to say I don't fancy attending the trooping of the colour this year or I'm going to put off meeting the Prime Minister this week (because I can't stand the bugger) or I'd rather poke my eyes out than launch this new ship.

They don't get to say no I'm not hosting Donald Trump or any other odious world leader.

Public service in the context of the BP statement is not suggesting that other forms of service are not worthy, but they are very different.

It's perfectly possible for H&M to do work that's worthy in the future and make valuable contributions to "the greater good".

However that work is not only within their total control but also does not come with the constraints of public service that which royal duty does and has the advantage of a fairly hefty upside of financial rewards.

As said in my pp their goal is not just to earn a living and do "good works" they want to be global movers and shakers using a veneer of philanthropy to amass a fortune rather than using a fortune to attain philanthropic status - all free from the constraints of royal duty.

I get it. I wouldn't marry a royal for love nor money. I understand why they want to break free. I don't wish them any ill but I see no need to sugar coat their aspirations nor elevate their motivations to the point of ignoring their pursuit of self interest.

Such eloquence, @DeRigueurMortis ! Yes, basically service is duty, quite unlike charitable and philanthropic endeavours which you can pick up and put down according to whim.

Thank you everyone. I think I am beginning to understand all of this much better thanks to your eloquent posts.

@IrmaFayLear

Thank you .

I think you're right that the word "duty" is the big distinction here.

People (including H&M) are conflating the worth of "service", with the context and constraints of its provision.

Being a full time working royal is not just a series of tedious appointments and engagements between which you get to act as you please.

You don't get an "off" day and decide that you're going to ignore protocol and go to a political party conference, wear a tee-shirt with a controversial slogan, swear at a photographer (unless it's "naff orph" ) or a myriad of other small but tedious constraints on your life.

Every life choice has to be considered in the context of the impression of the monarchy and the country it conveys to public as does every public engagement, everything you say and everything you do.

As you rightly say you don't get to pick up and put down your service - you have to live it full time.

It's interesting - I wonder if HM had her concerns early on? She offered that Harry and Meghan could have a low key wedding, live a private life, maybe Meghan carry on with her career until she was settled in the UK. Then the Commonwealth roles were to enable them to use their skills and profile of diversity, also to live in Africa, as Harry had wished. It's a shame that didn't work out, but claiming anyone is the villain of the piece isn't quite right.
Thank you to everyone posting, this is a reasonable thread - I've found that anything concerning Meghan and Harry often gets heated!

“However that work is not only within their total control but also does not come with the constraints of public service that which royal duty does and has the advantage of a fairly hefty upside of financial rewards”

Well, the RF has hefty financial reward from our public purse. (And it is based on birth not any type merit. It is not like they have to do x number of hours to get paid).

I don’t get that bit about not picking and choosing and having to do boring stuff somehow makes it a “service”.

Everyone who has a job has to do boring stuff too, dictates by their employers. We don’t call it service. We call it a job. And get remunerated for it.

So why is it ‘service’ when the Rf do whatever their job is and get paid for it? (and it is not fully clear to me why we even pretend that they have a job or are ‘working’ or providing service’)

It is all such a feudal mindset to imagine the Rf have dibs on public service. And indeed, that cutting ribbons is public service!

Philanthropy is the modern version and M&H were right to say service is universal and everyone can and should do it.

I remember reading that the amazon owner (jeff bezo’s wife) wanted to set up a philanthropic arm and they took a systematic and professional approach with transparency in how they operated, clear metrics by which ‘success’ was measured etc. A far cry from the RF!

Now that is proper public service!

@Lookingforwardto2021 - it's certainly a system that ought to be reviewed and at the very least, streamlined. I suppose the biggest difference between the Queen and a tech billionaire is that HM has to do the government's bidding. She's in service to the British people. Bill Gates can please himself, he's a philanthropist. .

Philanthropy is the modern version and M&H were right to say service is universal and everyone can and should do it.

No it really isn't.

Philanthropy is the use of an already acquired fortune to doing "good works" for the "greater good".

It's not using your royal connections to acquire that fortune even if the mechanisms by which you do it have (or potentially have) some measure of wider social benefit.

Not everyone can be a philanthropist because not everyone has a vast fortune at their disposal (like Mackenzie Bezos).

Not every can acquire a fortune by trading off the platform provided by being a (former) member of the royal family because that platform is not one that was part of our birthright or gained through marriage.

Service isn't actually universal in the sense you're conflating it with philanthropy. It's actually a privilege of the very few.

H knows exactly what public service (in the context of the Queens statement) is and the constraints of royal duty. If it's universal and everyone can do it then why is he choosing not to?

If there is equivalence between the public service within the confines of the RF and outside of it there would be no reason to choose a different life.

As I've said I'm sure they intend to do "good works" but there's absolutely no reason to be blind to the fact that what H&M want is not equivalent to the public service referenced by the Queen and is fundamentally motivated by self interest.

As for Everyone who has a job has to do boring stuff too, dictates by their employers. We don’t call it service. We call it a job. And get remunerated for it., I've already responded to this position in a previous post.

Normal jobs don't "bleed" into every aspect of your life from what you wear, what you'll doing next weekend, what you can call your child, who you have dinner with tonight etc ad nauseam...

It's service not because it might be at times tedious and boring but because it's both all encompassing and dictated by the demands of others (largely the Govt) and the "salary" they receive is there to fund the work they do not to reward it.

It isn't "service" to do exactly what you want, when you want to do it and earn mega bucks for doing so. That it might have some positive social impact is laudable but it's predominantly a exercise in self service rather than public service.

@DeRigueurMortis - I would concur absolutely with your explanation of the service issue. I'm surprised at Harry for that reason.

Sorry just to add, I don't think the RF are beyond reproach and I think there's a lot of work that could be done to make the "system" more transparent.

It's absolutely true that being a member of the RF brings with it much privilege and I don't believe that privilege has always been wielded in the public interest.

Aside from Andrew's disgraceful associations with Epstein I'm dismayed about how little investigating has been done as to how he's amassed a purported £80m fortune on the back of deals allegedly done which representing the country as a trade ambassador.

As I've said previously I'm neither particularly pro royal nor anti H&M I simply refuse to blindly engage on this matter on a #team one or the other basis.

@DeRigueurMortis, sorry what you are saying makes no sense to me 😃

I think you have a hard time explained what is this service’ that only the royal family can exclusively do. And why when others are providing service to their community, they are really not doing service, because, you know, only the RF can do that.

I think most of the world will agree with H&M on the sentiment that service is universal and can be done by anyone. But then, most people across the world have moved on from a feudal way if thinking.

If you don’t think so and want to surround the RF with some special aura, crack on. 😊

think you have a hard time explained what is this service’ that only the royal family can exclusively do. And why when others are providing service to their community, they are really not doing service, because, you know, only the RF can do that.

I've been absolutely clear in a previous post that service is not exclusive to the RF and given several examples so I'd politely request that you don't misrepresent what I've said.

The distinction I've made is between philanthropy, H&M stated intentions and public service.

Equally I absolutely do not think the RF family have some special aura but I do think the constraints of royal life are pertinent to this discussion.

Bear in mind it's exactly these constraints that H&M are chaffing against.

On a Basic level surely the queen meant public service as in they don't actually totally pick and choose what they do , which H&M are , also not based in the uk so not likely to go and visit the local factory or new wing of a hospital in the uk.
H&M are totally different to zara or beatrice of which they well know.

Public services are what the government provides through funding schools, hospitals etc.

Public servants are people employed by the government to carry out policies, eg, civil services

Building and running a hospital can be a public service. It is a stretch to say cutting a ribbon is a public service. Moreover anyone can cut a ribbon (Countries which don’t have monarchies miraculously find people who can cut ribbons. Moreover they don’t make it a cult activity with an insider handshake and if you don’t do it, you are banned from the cult 😃)

And the constraints, well they seem to be mostly self imposed by some archaic insider norms. I don’t think the government tells Kate or meghan what to wear and what to call their kids. If this is royal protocol, it is a made up game which is actually not required for any of the so called services they provide.

The only thing the non-queen royals are required to do, is be neutral and not break the law and that in it self doesn’t not constitute public service, it is simply a requirement

And they are all compensated generously by us the tax payer. So no selflessness there.